p_zinzer

Comment history

OK, so how come the Board is now coming hat-in-hand to the City Council and the Planning Commission asking them to have the City pay for any planned improvements that will be required for the Elm Street extension? The Board full well knew about these requirements prior to issuance of the bond. How come they didn't increase the amount of the bond to cover these known costs?

I'll tell you why. Because they would have lost enough additional votes that the bond issue wouldn't have passed. Do remember, my dear BB, that 46% of the voters rejected the balance measure. It wouldn't have taken many voters to have changed their opinion for it to have swung the other direction.

Instead, they decided to go for a lower dollar amount in order to get it passed, even though they knew that it was underfunded and would then try to ask the City residents to pay for the additional cost, rather than spreading the cost to all the members of the district. I call that dishonest. Apparently you call it open and transparent.

So Bloggerboo, are you in effect saying that it would be OK for the people in the know to have purposely withheld information about the true costs of the bond-funded project because their actions were done with the intention of helping the school district? I want to make sure I understand properly what you are saying.

So does that mean the money that was "saved" from the bids can now be actually spent to fund the necessary items that the Board purposely neglected to put in the bid to begin with (i.e. the Elm Street improvements). If this is indeed what happens you can say we were all lucky. I say this was an enormous risk perpetrated on the residents of this fine City by people that full-well knew better.

And I agree with Torch that the items to be funded are luxuries. All y'all that say our students deserve the latest in color fashions for their modern berber-carpeted classrooms can go pound sand. I went to school in a utilitarian building that didn't have air conditioning or carpet (preferred by the janitor since it made it easier to clean up the puke using the pink sawdust). I did just fine and even liked to enjoy the outdoors because it was cooler than inside.

Little Kaitlyn and her friend Katelin and her other friend Katielyn and her other friend Kaytelin and her other friend Trystyn will be just fine too. It's amazing if you actually subject kids to the real world, it's almost as if they turn out to be more resilient people.

I think it's fine to wonder about who Ken would appoint, but let's face it ... if Ken wins the mayoral race then he is granted the authority by the codes of the City to appoint whomever he feels best to replace him on the City Council (which in practical terms means someone who is likely to see things the same way that he sees things). The City Council then has the ability to approve or reject the suggested appointee. That's how it works. He is under no obligation whatsoever to appoint the third-highest vote getter, nor is there anything inherently "wise" about doing that.

So had it been raining or snowing or perhaps below freezing, might it have presented additional challenges to you that having a covered building would alleviate? How about the fact that you actually worked on private property that someone paid for (both in land payments and taxes) instead of being forced to work out in the street, and the fact that the place where you worked was paved instead of a mud puddle? Do you understand that these seemingly inconsequential things (to your way of thinking) actually cost money and allow him to perform his work year-round, get it to work right, and allow him to warrant some or all of his work? Not to mention that he has to bear the cost of a telephone line for him to be there during business hours to take both your first and second call?

I think you had better give up on this argument. If you don't want to do business with him, that's dandy fabulous. If you feel more qualified to do this kind of work, then I suggest you go into business for yourself and then see how long it takes for someone to call you and suggest that A.) you don't know what the flip you are doing, and B.) you are trying to rip off customers with your ultra-high prices.

The math seems straightforward enough to me. I've listened to another mechanic in town (one who's never been rude) explain how customers will gripe and moan about the cost of anything and fuss about how he marked up the repair part. Yet these same people have no problem going to somewhere like Outback Steakhouse and pay $12.95 for a piece of meat that would run you perhaps $4.00 in the grocery store.

I agree that those business owners that aren't able to maintain their composure and treat customers (potential or actual) rudely do not deserve our business. Interestingly enough, the market has a way of sifting these characters out without too much bother from us. But for customers to constantly think they know better and know how much something ought to cost HAS to be frustrating for a Baldwin business owner.

Glad you got your problem worked out with a bit of elbow grease and some really great family and friends.